you think that everything is done within commitment changes. of channel management.. its not.. ill summarise(analogy first):
z. now take a htlc. imagine a piece of paper as a contract with terms
y. now, take a commitment. imagine its a box. with a HTLC piece of paper inside that box
x. now take a channel. imagine thats a box that has a commitment boxes inside it (1 for each partner)
w. now take a node. imagine thats a box that can contain many channel boxes
v. now take a string. that peer connects to other node boxes
now take a separate box call this (V(w(M))) M is for messages transmitted through w's via V in msat format
a LN payment is (V(w(M))) not (V(X(Y(Z))))

also all messages are send via V not Z
within the V messages they can be in many formats. lets just call them:
(V(w(M))) for Ln payments in sats
(V(X(Y(Z)))) for commitment changes
.. there are hundreds of messages but lets just for demo sake just concentrate on two, as it seems you have preference for just 1 and i dont want to stretch you too far

now more technical version of the analogy explained
https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md#lightning-message-format


inside the payload of say a onion_packet(v(w(?))) it has its own payload called hop_payload
and inside that hop_payload it has its own payload called hop data
and that data is
https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md#legacy-hop_data-payload-format
the amount is in Msat, and does not contain keys, or HTLC for a commitment.
it is not sending a signature or HTLC to change a channels commitment HTLC

if you read all the bolts(requested many times now) you would see many messages without payload in (Y or Z) format
the (y) format is in sats. other messages are in msats... get it yet.(different messages, do different things)
its not all related to commitment changes not everything is in Y or Z format

you want to think that LN payments are done via commitments HTLC messages or channels updates
(y)Commitment (types 128-255) (x)Channel (types 32-127)

but they are done at the string level on the outer box
(v)Setup & Control (types 0-31) or (w)Routing (types 256-511)

LN payments
the payload for the messages(v(w(M))) happening at the outer box string level(v) is payments in Msats (before everything).
the payload is not in Y or Z formats. nor sat denominated

this is the LN payment stuff. right at the start where alice wants to pay eric. IT'S NOT COMMITMENT(changes at the point of already finding the destination and they all agree to accept with their fee's included). because participants dont yet know amounts to commit to (obviously)
get it yet. you cant commit to an amount that you dont know.
a commitment(y(z)) happens after the LN payment(v(w))

and again. before you say that the payload of (v(w)) is (y(z)) i have just shown you the hop data is Msat amount without any (z) stuff.
they dont know (z)HTLC yet because they dont know what they should commit to yet

this is because if alice wants to pay eric 1000.
1. (alice knows erics invoice details(v or uri). but doesnt know which route to take to pay him 1000)
2. alice sends exploratory(v(w)) message with a payload of 1000msat to bob)
    (alice asks bob if he can forward, bob wants 1 for his fee. so bob is willing to forward alice payload+1 (1001))
    bob sends exploratory(v(w)) message with a payload of 1001msat to carol
3. (bob asks carol if she can forward1001, carol wants 1 for her fee. so carol is willing to forward bobs payload+1(1002))
4. carol sends exploratory(v(w)) message with a payload of 1002msat to diana)
    carol asks diana if she can forward1002, diana wants 1 for her fee. so diana is willing to forward carols payload+1(1003)
5. diana asks eric if he can accept payment.
6. he acknowledges knowing he gets 1000(minus 3(fees))
at this point.
alice does not know that the actual amount is 1003 yet. because she has not yet got the route response(v(w))

on the response.  
7. diana then knows she has to pay 1000 to eric. so asks carol for 1001
8. carol then knows she has to pay 1001 to diana. so asks bob for 1002
9.bob then knows he has to pay 1002 to carol. so asks alice for 1003
0. alice then knows she has to pay 1003 to bob

at this point is when they update the commitment and send a (v(z)) message with commitment update message to their partner who then signs his side and (v) message back

these messages are done on the node level not the commitment level
also note that 6,7,8,9 include other data not related to commitment. and also note that 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 are messages measured in msat

yes. once receiving node level (outer box string messages denominated in msat) the nodes then look within their boxes to adjust their commitment box contents within the particular channel box content accordingly.

but dont confuse the msat payment messages of deciding what to sent how to send and what the fee is and the acknowledgement parts are commitments done at only commitment adjustment level.

again you cant adjust a commitment until you know something different that needs to be changed.
and a commitment is about commuting to something. so a commitment is not altered every time a message is received as it may not be in their favour.

the commitment is done AFTER and separate from the routing messages..
EG how does bob know he has to commit to 1002 with carol or 1003 with alice if he at point 1 has only got a message from alice for 1000
he has yet to try carol, and yet to get a acknowledgement from eric,diana1003,carol1002 to then commit to 1002 with carol and commit to 1003 with alice

i know you only want to speak about the inchannel direct payment to channel partner. where the only messages are done between JUST the string of the partners. where the only message is to update HTLC of commitments.

but you are ignoring the routing and hop messages of payments outside of channels

(but your missing out on the outer box thinking of the LN network and the LN payment messages that hop across many strings multiple boxes away)

---

the reason i use analogies and simple common english. is because the bolts has all the technical stuff for those that want the technical waffle. i break things down into simpler explanations average joe can interpret(as long as they are not grammar nazi/ignorant insulting) so that other readers outside the technical people can learn something, in "common speak", not "elitist speak".

i know im about to get hounded by grammar nazi's saying that i used (V(X(Y(Z)))) instead of their favourite group decided buzzword of the month.. well tough. if you cant translate it back to your buzzword thats your failing of translation.

english is not just the queens elitist post scholar speak. it has many variations. someone from hacney speaks differently than someone from liverpool or glasgow.
if you just want to grammar nazi about 'its not posh english' go somewhere else and play games with other people. your boring

i can tell your code is a scenario of just the commitment in channel HTLC of a direct payment where the destination is the channel party.(bob, not eric)
your now boring me with your obsession with the direct payment to bob example..

as it doesnt apply to routed/hopped payments

by the way the payment_hash inside that code is the alice or bob payment hash.. not erics

in a route/hop, scenario the situation is different and different messages are sent
eric does not get a alice or bob payment_hash
its actually alice, bob, carol, diana that use erics payment hash to 'pass the parcel'.(within LN payment messages, not commitments) which then(separately after) triggers channel partner negotiations of updating the separate and after commitment between the partners

again stop just referring to a alice-bob direct payment.. its boring and out of context, done just to avoid discussing LN payments in routes.

i have said multiple times about your avoidance of discussing the routed payment protocols.
and each time you just want to post code of inchannel direct payment to channel partner commitment examples

just take another day to try reviewing the other bolts

gotta laugh..

a HTLC is not specific to bitcoin. or to blockchain formatted stuff. and its not only used within LN for blockchain denominated contracts that can be broadcast to blockchains.

again (hop/route model scenario described before) if erics payment_hash was used in a commitment HTLC, and then if that commitment was broadcast and confirmed on the separate bitcoin network.
eric has the secret to then sign out that UTXO to himself

LN payments(that route/hop through nodes) use a HTLC thats not the same data as the one inside a specific channels commitment.

just because you read HTLC it does not mean it only refers to a commitment.
just becasue you only want to reference a scenario describing a direct payment inchannel that doesnt involve routing/hopping. doesnt mean that routing hopping HTLC dont exist

you can have different ones in different things.
you can have them in channels using different blockchain chainhash. and in LN micropayments.

seems rath_ has not gained any new insight over the last day and just wants to stick to the bolt2 (again)(facepalm)(yawn)

that part he quotes. is about updating commitments..
a totally separate part thats not to do with LN payment messages

LN payment messages also can have their own HTLC.

for instance the commitment HTLC has terms of payment of the two partners
a LN payment HTLC has the terms of the final destination of a routes key being used by all nodes along the route.

the terms of the HTLC in a commitment are measured in sat
the terms of the HTLC in a Ln payment are measured in msat

---

ok. lets get to the crux of the consensus debate, by summarising your questions with questions of my own. to avoid your silly games.

1a. true consensus 'cause->effect' trail is: vote->threshold met-> activation -> issues with minority who are incompatible
[ * ] agree  [  ]disagree

1b. true consensus 'cause->effect' trail is: vote->issues with minority who are incompatible-> threshold met-> activation
[  ] agree  [ * ]disagree

2a. the bitcoin network mandated rejecting legacy/normal(2009-2016 standard format blocks) before segwit activated

• agree  [  ]disagree

2b. the bitcoin network activated segwit without mandating rejecting blocks that were not voting for segwit
[  ] agree  [ * ]disagree

2c. the bitcoin network never had a bit number change flagging for a mandatory rejection of normal blocks in july
[  ] agree [ * ]disagree


[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

dont auto-trust a service asking for large investment making promises of returns, but then hides behind proxies
https://who.is/whois/blockfi.com
blockfi.com's contact page just says 'headquarters, Jersey City, New Jersey'

if you cant find an address to 'serve' a lawsuit against. you wont find it easy if they ever scam, liquidate, enter bankruptcy, freeze funds illegally, or 'get hacked'

always do your research before handing value to strangers. the KYC(know your customer) they ask for, should also be KYC(know your company)

so are you saying that in YOUR 'fact' (opinion) the currency inside LN payments is the same?
.. and now we full circle back to Msat discussion. and the 1:1000 peg.

are you certain that Msats are not used in the payment messages sent around the hop/route, where by in YOUR 'fact' (opinion) only bitcoin is used?

or are you saying that Msats are only bitcoin related and Msats are not used in other blockchain pegged channels and payments?

also in relation to things like 'turbo'(plus other LN use-cases).. are you really certain that Msats are locked/pegged to a 6 confirm ('locked') bitcoin blockchain utxo?

are you sure LN transacts "bitcoin"? even though "bitcoin" never leaves the bitcoin blockchain and the pegged/locked "bitcoin" you speak of is locked. and does not transact until its confirmed to have transacted on the bitcoin network.

now before replying. do not confuse the locked funding or the not on blockchain "commitment" vs the "LN payment" of messages denominated in msat.
do not try to say lightning only handles sat measured bitcoin 'payments' by discussing commitments that are never sent around hop/routes of the LN network, just to ignore the msat LN payment stuff that is sent around the LN network.

i played that game with rath_ already and it didnt work

i do understand many nuances, and many details outside your groups narrow focused box of scripts you have recited.
and so gathered by the group mindset, and their many arguments, cries and recited scripts where they believe that LN is bitcoin. they can only think in one option. and consider any other option as something to reject and oppose and try to get rid of
because it doesnt fit their narrative

the only reason i done the questions in strict certainty of question wording, and answers in agree or disagree format, is because of the group cries that didnt want grey flimsiness.. i done it for the groups benefit

it is done to get to the crux of their stance of their opinion in a short, quick, hard certain form.
you cant cry that the questions are now more precise after the group cried that the first questions seemed grey.

reference to cry

funny part is you answered that question.. you then cried by adding in another opinion you wanted to set. which is why in the revision of the questions i added in extra questions to resolve your other opinion.

so dont cry to me that i didnt try.

but then your not stating what it cant be(silver). thus leaving it as an open question with an open answer means its making no decided point of certainty.  

EG
you want to set the narrative that users can be thrown of the network, yet as i know your tactic you want to turn any answer into an argument about bitcoins 2017 event, fitting whatever narrative you please. taking the flimsy answer however you please.

so here is my answer:
consensus 2009-2016 required majority acceptance voluntarily before activation occurred.
consensus 2017-20xx didnt require majority before forking. instead it mandated just a 'bit' flag change without need of compatible software upgrade.. the mandate forced a vote. which caused a fork BEFORE activation. where any pool not changing the bit would have their block rejected in august 2017.
the pre activation fork:
did not happen due to blocks containing segwit formats being rejected by old peers causing their own separation.
did happen by the mandate rejecting legacy(2009-2016) block flags. even before segwit activated

this was not a majority accept then activate it was a mandate which may cause a fork after.
it was fork first.. to cause faked 100% acceptance due to lack of opposition listed. to then get activation after
 even the bip91 and 148 state this. and you know this. even though you dont want to admit it

i have coin.. not just to hoard, but to spend too. i pass it to another person on the blockchain. without me having to use a exchange market. my utility of bitcoin and my hoarding of bitcoin does not affect the price of bitcoin, due to my activity/inactivity(both not market order related). bitcoin is not just a 2 option, hoard or market exchange. its also personal swaps, and personal lock-up for altnets, where altnets then move value in different currency.
you can be a trader on things like localbitcoins and not affect the market price of coinbase/binance

what affects the market price of the viewed PRICE of bitcoin is the trades that happen on the prominent exchanges.

i can if i chose to. lock up bitcoin(hoard) peg it to an altnet. use the altnet to swap for an altcoin and change the altcoins price on a prominent altcoin exchange. without impacting bitcoins price and without moving bitcoin after the lock. thus appear as if bitcoin is still being hoarded, yet my 'funds'(wealth) have moved on.
and whomever i locked my bitcoin into. then has an acquisition cost of today. meaning he wont sell today at 0 profit.
and i certainly didnt(in hypothetical scenario) sell my bitcoin. so the bitcoin that i was hoarding for ~10 years is not now deemed as valued at its 10year old value. nor has this allotment changed the bitcoin market price.

so as you can see there are alot more nuances, and depth to value and price and what effects both

you dont buy furniture or cars on the commodities market.
you buy beef, oil, wheat. raw materials.... which later (after market) become products (assets/stock)
you mention cars.. so steel, lithium, oil would be the commodity, which later after market is used to build a car


bitcoin is a new asset class that has many functions. it can fit on the forex(currency) market. it can sit on the investments stock/shares market(ETF)
but it wont be a commodity in terms of a raw material used in production of another product.


also. you mention "value derived".
pick anything. lets say milk(again)
a retail customer may value milk at between £1-£1.50 as thats the value window they expect to all pay somewhere in between.
the price however changes due to the retailers choice to sell it at good value(near £1) or sell it at premium(near £1.50).
EG all retailers refuse to sell below £1 and all customers refuse to buy above £1.50

the reasons to sell it at different prices(within the value window) can be things like:
+greed(profit)
- wanting to gain more custom
+higher production cost from farm
-lower production cost from farm
+higher acquisition cost from wholesaler
-lower acquisition cost from wholesaler
-just have so much and its time to get paid for what they have, even at cost

also on the flip side of the market offer, the buyer might only want to buy:
-cheap out of greed.
+pay a premium if its something they need and cant get cheaper by other methods.
+pay a premium because the other methods are not easy to get to

but these buyer/seller PRICE negotiations happen inside the general value window of £1-£1.50
yes one week milk might be £1.20, the next £1.40. the next £1.50 and then offered at 20% off(back to £1.20)

but on the outside of the box economics. right now the milk value window is £1-£1.50.. where as 20 years ago it was £0.60-£1.. where by the PRICE was fluctuating within the window of 20 years ago

there is only so much twitter does. so being a CEO gets boring when there is not much 'new features' to add/change/maintain.
turning up each day and just say, for example "great work employee's keep doing what you're doing, see you tomorrow" is not really exciting. he wanted a challenge. bitcoin is still new and has lots of potential, something to be excited about

thankyou for a respectful attempt at answering the questions
some questions seem similar due to the social drama of a certain group that have cried about reasons to not answer the questions, so i asked similar questions in different forms just to try and get an answer out of them

you might notice my questions about 'always linked' and 'LN is the bitcoin network' is to appease the groupies who DO think it is. and have said so in many topics over the last 4 years. its not my opinion it was just an unbiased question to vet and summarise peoples opinion on their beliefs


so lets stay at a same level of standards
because your consensus questions have flimsy "can be, can happen", rather then "do, are" your not asking anything finite and certain(your same standard argued this when you said my questions were not wrote correct)

i bothered to appease groupies cries with short questions of finite/certain points to answer.. also then to appease your cries of believed bias i re-reformatted my questions to be unbiased and be finite in both for/against formats of a&b variants, so perhaps you can reciprocate, by writing questions without the flimsiness of "can be, can happen" which has no certainty being asked

you dont need to lure people in. you dont need to do it purely for the betterment of the market.
that weak mindset is 'get someone to buy, so it can spike the price. so i can exit.

if all you are thinking about is YOUR exit plan and how you can lure people in to achieve your way of getting out. you are not really caring for bitcoin. you are sounding more like a get rich quick fiat lover just using(abusing) bitcoin, and your friends for your own goals

..
i have entertained many people and made them interested in bitcoin. not via a get rich quick scheme (i have hoards from 2012 and i have no desire to sell anytime soon, im not interested in get rich quick schemes or exit plans)

i instead show them that bitcoin is a real currency. i have bought pizza using it and when the pizza arrived they seen that bitcoin is a real currency and accepted for purchase of real stuff locally.

i then explain people dont need to invest life savings, but instead if they smoke 7 packets of cigarettes a week or buy fastfood take-out twice a week. try 6 packets and 1 take-out. and use the disposable income saved to put aside in bitcoin.

after all smoking is not an investment. thats just burning money..
after all fast food take-out just literally becomes the contents of a toilet bowl the next day.

knowing its no major loss to them and their home/life is not at risk. they see the benefits in giving it a try.
they then thank you later

"money rituals" come from the stupid washy-washy ploys of witchcraft scammery centuries ago

the poor/sick wanted to be healthy/rich. and so they sought out anyone that offered them their dreams
these dream offering people would not heal/make them rich. but played on the naiveness and greed of their victims.

setting them impossible tasks as phase one to the scam. like 'kill your first born' this initially was meant as a scare tactic where obviously they would refuse wanting to kill their first born to get their naive greed/dream reached.
the witchcraft scammer then offers the real thing the witch wants, as a more reasonable task. "pay the witch just XXcurrency, instead of killing first born.. and when the <moon aligns as a lunar eclipse on a tuesday> or <insert unrealistic circumstance> you will get XXXXXXXcurrency". scam victims obviously then thought paying the witch was good value. and so hand over currency.... and wait forever for <unrealistic circumstance> for victim to get their promised reward

over the years. some took the first phase of witchcraft scam(threatening death just to scare people into paying) too seriously and so some actually went ahead with killing and maiming people and animals.

and so witchcraft changed from a scam method to scare people into paying currency(grey witches). into witchcraft of actual death and injury. (black witches)

modern teenagers are just as naive as the ancient tribal cultures. and will do anything to get an advantage.
heck teenagers think they are free of consequence because they are wrongly told they cant be arrested. which is why kids get into drugs (until they learn about juvenile prison the hard way)

which is why in some countries you will see naive teens think they can steal, bully, threaten, harm to get what they want and think they can get away with it. and mainly in developing countries where they take it a step further into violence and death

what people can learn from this is:
first teach the kids that juvenile prison is a real thing. and their age does not make them immune from prosecution.
THEN teach them about how to avoid prison by their actions(dont hurt people, dont steal)
THEN teach them to not believe the cultish, witchcraft, scam group crap they see on the internet.

usually kids dont listen to moral advice if they think there is no consequence... so start by mentioning the consequences. and then give them a reason to listen to the advice

bitcoin wont replace FIAT. agreed.
governments want control of their tax incomes and court fines and minimum wage laws. all of which make their FIAT viable.
if people could be paid in any amount, any currency and pay any bill, tax, or courtfine. then FIAT would lose its importance/necessity.

many first world countries governments will never lose their grip on their FIAT product. as having control over it means they can control their 'treasury income'

imagine if USA changed a law allowing people to pay taxes in anything else. people will try paying in baked bean tins and art and everything else. .. senators dont want to be paid a salary in 1month old rotten fish.
you cant then have the DOD buy tanks, warships and soldiers weaponry in peanut butter.

they want control of fiat to ensure people get paid in fiat which revolves around to being taxed in fiat which revolves around to paying senators and leaders in fiat, they are dependant on the circulation of their fiat.

bitcoin is a 'second option' where people are not made to only store value in bank accounts. but they can have more options of storing value in other assets.

US didnt drop the dollar, simply because some silicon valley coders were being paid euros for their 'remote work'. because the silicon valley coders then need to convert euros to dollars to pay U.S tax.

its the same thing with bitcoin. although you are paid in bitcoin or sometimes spend bitcoin outside the physical US(aka online)
people in america will still need to value that income/spend in dollars when doing their US denominated taxes. and convert bitcoin to dollars to pay said taxes

bitcoin is just going to be another option currency. like how americans treat the euro

solo.Ckpool
is "buzzworded" as solo. but not actually solo..
its configuration is not that the USER has to have a bitcoin node to look at its mempool and collate transactions into a block and create its own blockheader and coinbased rewarding itself. and then independently going through all the possible nonces, extra-nonces and extra-extra-nonces of its own solo block

instead ckpool:
collates the transactions and manages which asic gets which work.
sets the reward arrangement
deciding to only pay itself 2% and the wining asic 98% (instead of collecting 100% and later sharing to all asics)
ckpool does send new work for the block template ck pool creates.


ck pool users:
just need to connect their asic to ck pool with a username and password and start hashing

as the ckpool websote itself says:

its not solo because the 'stratum' is managed by the pool. not by the user
its not solo because that requires the user to have a bitcoin node to collate the transactions and create a template themselves.

the onlything 'solo' about it is the payout(if your luck) is 98% 'solo'
but the block template management is very much pooled

its these 'idea's' and queries they are thinking of addressing is what got discussions started on the theory of cloud mining as one of the options they may go down.

probably people picked up on his tweet of him trying cloud mining to earn BTC last year
https://twitter.com/jack/status/1427664937862717441

funnily enough it seems another groupy who wants to play more social drama queen games and wants to cry and wants a different buzzword. (boring social drama game)
well how about you queens go have your little group chat elsewhere and come back when you can decide on something. and actually able to have constructive discussion, instead of your social drama crap being played here.

a node is a software working on a network a channel is not a node.
but thanks for being a prime example of the social drama of trying to turn a LN discussion into a grammar nazi social drama game of boring replies

a channel is a agreement with 2 peers of certain terms in which they agree to swap value, with specific agreed terms
a node can have multiple channels (dont confuse the terms)

payment is not about the msat itself. its about the message/service/vessel used for the transport of (in this instance)msat.
hense why when i say payment i also try to specify what the payment is transporting
EG (LN payment denominated in msat)

funny part is. i personally prefer the word LN promises/IOU. but the social drama queens cried and so i compromised and started using one of their buzzwords.

also peg is very descriptive. because bitcoin outputs do not leave the bitcoin blockchain. in an LN payment(you queens can use any buzzword you like). they are converted into a msat denomination which the bitcoin network does not understand. and are pegged at a 1:1000 rate of sat:msat.
(bar examples like turbo, which is avoiding locked pegs and offering instant msats without a confirmed bitcoin output)

anyway
replying pretending to answer questions but not actually bothering to actually answer, but still posting just to say some alternative thing.. you might aswell of completely not bothered at all and just not replied.
you have not said anything constructive or done anything to move the discussion forward.
oh and those latest questions. were directed at Doomad because he took a small step forward answering 3 and so i wanted to get more answers from him.


i can predict you want to reply to this message with more social drama queen stuff, but just dont bother. its boring

..
if anyone else wants to reply. answer the questions properly. or if you cant stand by your opinions of how you think things work to answer and move the discussion forward. then just keep hiding your opinions. by not replying.

if you have the courage to actually answer the questions i stated. and you want to actually come forward and stand by your opinions. then great one step forward

here are the main questions again

---

insert a * into the answer that applies most towards your opinion of how you think things are.

1.a: lightning network is not the bitcoin network.
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

1.b: lightning network is the bitcoin network.
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

2.a: lightning network is a separate network that does different things than bitcoin
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

2.b: lightning network is always linked to the bitcoin network that does what bitcoin does
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

3.a: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in picocoin-1 (11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

3.b: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in btc
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

4.a: LN "payments" (inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

4.b: LN "payments" (inside LN) are same format, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

5.a: bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

5.b: bitcoin network does understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

6.a: LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

6.b: LN is tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

7.a: LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

7.b: LN will work without bitcoin
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

just dont reply with social drama games. you dont only bore me. but you also end up making your own pages of walls of text which your groupies also dislike.

market price is not dependant on the 19mill coins in circulation(hoarded or lost)
its dependant on the small amount of those 19mill that are actually traded(on market orders, deposited in exchanges)

yep market price only changes when orders are actually filled by actually having coin on the market.

the hoarders refusing to sell are not affecting the price. because they are not selling.. they are hoarding.
heres a few motto's for you:
a price does not move without a sell
for every seller is a buyer
buyers and sellers work together to make/set/change a price

yep buyers and sellers affect the price. not hoarders

its not hoarders philosophy you should interrogate. its the mindset of the day traders. and what 'value' they see as their purchase/sell limits.

once you grasp this concept then you can move one step closer to getting your answer answered about how markets and price valuations work.

so take some time to understand its the markets that are involved in the market price. and users in the market that decide on a value window by their collective emotions and limits that set the window of value for the price to speculate inbetween.

i have a nice hoard from 2012. and IF i were to put my coins into a market i can(then and only then) affect the market.
but guess what. i am not affecting the market. because i am hoarding

so try to understand the values of those who actually are on the market
i already gave you a few tip-bit examples of things you can research into in previous posts.

and i strangely know you will probably not want to seek and answer, and just want to slam insults just to enforce your pre-formed opinion.
but please just give it a try, research some options. and then you can either verify your opinion or change your opinion. just dont fear testing your opinion, with worrying that your opinion might be wrong.

---

out of curiosity.
is your understanding of what you feel as the way markets work, based purely on your experience of commodities.
where you see any commodity in circulation, need to be sold in X days.
is that why you dont like hoarding, because its not something you experienced.

is so, the only reason no one hoards beef, milk, orange juice, coffee beans.. is simple.
those commodities have a shelf life. hoard them too long and they go rotten

this is another reason why bitcoin is not a commodity, but an asset. because it has no shelf life forcing it to be sold quick.
(other crapcoins have 'demurrage' features, where bits of coin are lost if hoarded)

but bitcoin is not trying to be a commodity. its an asset. and assets are suppose to be owned long term

if you add up all bitcoin transactions

(image gets updated automatically by API)

at time of posting this is ~1500 a block (*2016block a fortnight*2)=6.048m transactions a month.
6million tx's a month for everything bitcoin related. exchanges, private trades. mixing, whatever, arbitraging

seems bitpay is at 1% of the whole market of transactions,
with dozens of payment gateways, many dozens of exchanges. many many hundreds of thousands of individuals moving funds privately/personally between themselves. 1% is considered a worthy number.

its not 30%-60% but then again decentralisation doesnt want a service handling 30-60% of transactions

i no longer worry about bills or expenses. (early adopter advantage)

i have travelled the world more often due to bitcoin related stuff

i have learned about different philosophies and different cultures more closely due to bitcoin discussions with others

i have noticed many cryptocurrency people do become very loyalist to their particular network, even when logic fails them

the social allegiances of certain crypto groups seems to inspire more verbal abuse and hate, more than say a sports team rivalry would

..
when talking to new people.
i dont nerd-spasm or religious-preach about bitcoin.. i start with 'i am an international currency trader' if asked what i do, and only go into more detail if they enquire

atleast i got some answer from you that are not about social discussion, but instead respectfully your opinion/stance of actual features of a software and network.

one step forward
my respect for you was at minus 100, now its minus 97(you stood up and gave your opinion on my 3 questions) it could have been minus 86 if you answered all 14 questions i asked(instead of troll editing to suite your "social discussion" bias).

now to take one step forward. now you are standing by the statements that LN payments are denominated in mediums of exchange not understood by bitcoin.

lets get more clarity on your opinion of the function and the feature of Lightning network (one topic at a time)
i ask for this clarity to summarise a multi-year debate doomad has with myself about his opinion of LN similarity to bitcoin vs my opinion of LN differences to bitcoin

so quote below the line and fill in the suitable answer with a *

---

after pegging a channel to a bitcoin blockchain confirmed transaction. using actual confirmed and locked funding (not turbo)
4a. is LN when doing the LN payments(msat denominated) making bitcoin payments.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

4b. is LN when doing the LN payments(msat denominated) making millisat(msat) payments.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

5a. are LN millisats pegged to bitcoins Sats at 1000:1 (msat:sat)
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

5b. are LN millisats unpegged
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

5c. are LN millsats the same as sats and the 1000:1 difference is non existent and not real thing in LN
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

using an analogy of other economics(help your understand)
after pegging a bank account to a notarised gold deposit. using actual notarised and vaulted gold
6a. are 19th century banknotes when doing the cash payments($$ denominated) making gold payments.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

6b. are banks when doing 19th century bank payments($$ denominated) making $$ payments.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

6a. are 19th century banknotes when doing the cash payments($$ denominated) making gold payments.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

7a. are banks when doing 21th century bank payments($$ denominated) still pegged to gold.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

7b. are banks when doing 21th century bank payments($$ denominated) no longer pegged to gold.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

now back to LN features
8a. are LN channels using turbo pegged to locked 6confirm deep bitcoin UTXO when they first 'push' msats to a user.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

8b. are LN channels using turbo pegged not locked 6confirm deep bitcoin UTXO when they first 'push' msats to a user.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

8c. are LN channels using turbo able to 'push' msats to a user even with a unconfirmed bitcoin transaction.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

(and now the ultimate, but long winded question which guide where we have difference of opinions the most on)

knowing of turbos 'features' and the github discussions of making it a bolt. in a scenario of LN when using a chainhash of bitcoin network genesis as the bases of seeking funding:

9a. can you stand by your opinion that LN is always 100% safe and all funding is 100% secure and guaranteed(trustless) in the channel.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

9b. does LN involve a level of trust and amicable agreement in certain situations
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree